(first posted 3/22/2018) Here’s an article that caught my sixteen year-old eyes in 1969: an in-depth review of the 435 hp 427 Corvette. And its a good one, as it spends a lot more time analyzing what a Corvette is, and means, beyond the visceral impact of driving just about the fastest production car in the land. And that includes some prognosticating about its inevitable mid-engine replacement.
One of the more revealing statistics about the demographics of Corvette buyers at the time is that “a growing majority of Corvette buyers are under-25 blue-collar types making less than $10,000 ($67k adjusted) per year. Curiously, the next largest segment of buyers is over-50, white-collar men who earn over $15,000 ($102k adjusted) per year. One is tempted to say that these to main demographic segments haven’t changed all that much over the decades.
In case you’re wondering how “under-25 blue-collar types” could afford a Corvette, 1969 was just a couple of years shy of the all-time peak of men’s hourly earnings. And even this top-performance version 435hp Corvette had an as-tested price of $6,573, which is $44,672 adjusted, or the price of pickup today. A 2018 Corvette starts at $55k, but the top performance version, the ZR-1, goes for well over $120k.
This Corvette was a challenge for me at the time. I had been a huge fan of the C2, as well as the ’56-’57, and obviously the ’68 Corvette’s Mako Shark styling made a big impact on me. But I also saw that it was a bit overwrought, and it felt somewhat less the international competitor than the C2. Also, the changing demographics were clearly impacting its image, and I was already aware of that at the time. The Corvette was quite affordable at a time when wages were swelling, whereas in the C2’s era, it was undoubtedly a more exclusive car. I would have loved to give it a whirls, but my interest was clearly turning more to import sports cars.
The Corvette’s image issues have been around for a long time, and may never go away.
The Corvette’s performance, with a 0-60 time of 5.3 seconds, and the quarter mile dispatched in 13.8 seconds @ 106.8 mph was very impressive at the time, but obviously times have changed. Those are only just slightly faster than a Camry V6, and about comparable to a Subaru Forester XT I tested some years back. Never mind a Tesla Model S. But in 1969, this was the shits. Well, except of course the even faster L-88 version.
Here’s the best line in the whole article: “The present Corvette will doubtlessly be the last front-engine model. It remains uncertain if the the new rear-engine version will be introduced in 1971 or 1972”. How about 2020? Half a century of waiting for the mid-engine Corvette has certainly provided lots of grist for the automotive press all that time.
Just like 1976 Cadillac Eldorado convertible being the last ‘Great American Convertible’. People snapped them up, thinking of dollar signs on their eyes down the road years later, only to find out General Motors lied.
The word “lie” implies deceitful intent. There was none. The worst thing GM was guilty of was lacking foresight to project market conditions a decade into the future. How were they to know that the upcoming convertible-killing FMVS standard never materialized? How were they to know that Lee A, desperate to save Chrysler & grow market share by exploring every possible market niche,
was to revive the concept. How were they to know that in doing so, Lee A had re-awoken said previously dormant market niche? Which, in turn, prompted other manufacturers to jump on the bandwagon?
None of this was foreseeable in the darkest days of Bi-Centennial era malaise.
Yep, the Corvette just isn’t the car it used to be. Well, we have seen one of the faster rehabilitations with this one. All it took was the 1974-81 Malaise Vettes to make the world appreciate these.
How many years did we read about the mid-engine Corvette and the Wankel engine that were both just around the corner?
I find it amusing to note that C&D questioned if whether the market would accept a 305 or 350 CID Corvette? Before there was a 305, BTW. The 1980 Cali market Corvette actually HAD a 305.
Auto only as well. 4 speed NA.
Excellent assessment, Paul. Only recently have I warmed to the C3 generation, but only the chrome bumper pre-’73 models. It was the post ’73 malaise/disco-era ‘vettes that cemented the mid-life crisis “gold chain” image that persists to this day.
If 25 year olds could afford (or desire) a new Corvette back in the day, I don’t see the same today. They can’t afford them, nor do they seem to care much about them. It’s become become an old man’s car, which isn’t surprising since the over 50 empty-nester set (well over 50 by my observation at local cruise nights) can afford one as a “reward” after years of driving kids around in the family minivan.
Anyway, I’d definitely like to put a ’68-’71 LT1 coupe in my garage someday.
FWIW, could still get dual exhausts on 73-74 Vettes, and 454 motors. Also, can buy one and modify without worrying about “matching numbers”, etc.
That 454 CID (390HP) Corvette was a force to be reckoned with, especially with some easy Bolt-on’s- adding an LS-6 build, @ a conservative rating of 450HP, 500Ft/Lbs (GROSS) 300HP+/- (Net) would have been sweet. Speaking of “affordability’, check out this Car for sale I’d recently discovered. Sorry, It’s Sold- unfortunately…but a good example. They’re out there……www.gatewayclassiccars.com/HOU/1041/1973-chevrolet-corvette
Many had/have chose not to or cannot comprehend ‘Net’ and ‘Gross’, many a Car maker has tried to confuse this in the past by muddying up the Water- a rough 15-20% loss over ‘Gross’ HP equals ballpark ‘NET’ HP, and the real number of significance. Manufacturers reverted back and fro using ‘Gross” & ‘Net’ figures when Ralph Nader was hard at work limiting outputs & choking the Musclecars in late 70’-early 71’. The 427’s were great motors, yet restricted by the awful factory Manifolds. Tuned Headers really wake them up. Then, the Federal Emissions act.?
The Mighty 1971 454/450HP w/450Ft/lbs went to 365HP & 550Ft/lbs (An added TQ. Bonus by dropping C.R.,’Cam lift/Dur./C.line, Oval Port Heads, Exh., etc.. & generally gagging, reducing flow, kicking the power output to low RPM range).
On a nicer note- Both the Aluminum Block 12:1 C.R. 69’ ZL-1 427, -430HP, and the 70’ 12.5:1C.R. ZL-1/L-88 Iron-Block Hybrid, were vastly underrated @ 430HP, latter producing more like 500HP/500+Ft/lbs. (Requiring 100-104 Octane) & not retarding Timing & not driving like “Rain Man’ would likely cause detonate to death rapidly (using today’s laughable Unleaded Pump Gas).
Another wave is incoming…., OUR “Government” is currently embedded in “feasibility studies” targeted on the newer Genre’ Vehicles, specifically : “Why do Manufacturers design modern Cars for Consumers producing 500+.HP that run 150-200MPH to drive on Roads at our legal speed limits of 70MPH, and creating escalated risks of high speed Collision?
This one could hurt…
Pic of my unmolested, Bone stock and Original 60k mi. 78’ Anniversary Corvette. Stock 350 produces around…… 200HP, +/-.’ God, please make that a ‘Net’ figure- at least. Gross would equate to around a -30HP drop.
These were quite the bargain back in 1969 with a base price under 5 grand. There were indeed many owners under 25 with good jobs at the local Bethlehem Steel plant, Martin Marietta and other heavy industries with high, union wages. Today, this demographic has largely disappeared, as has the young, new Corvette owner. Whenever I see a late model Vette it’s invariably driven by a 50 plus male, someone who can afford its $60 K plus cost. Corvette gatherings now also skew to the gray haired set. The new Corvette is in many ways a technological marvel, showcasing all of its expensive technology and geegaws. Chevy has its halo car, bit it’s a shame it’s inaccessible to the demographic that would most enjoy it.
I sense a fellow Baltimore County resident in this post. ;o)
I was 9 years old in 1969, and to me, growing up a car nut, the C3 will always be my favorite ‘vette. Was it the best, heck no… the current one probably wears that crown. But growing up and learning to drive in the malaise era, this was THE Corvette, styling wise.
Coming to these pages however, I now appreciate this car’s predecessor, the C2 a little more.
Your comments about demographics are spot on, CPJ.
The underlying shame of this entire article is that it’s not just an amusing review of past opinions of performance and predictions-gone-badly-wild, but an underlying look at where American society has gone. As someone who was nineteen when this review came out (I probably read it, but have no memory whatsoever, mainly because I’ve always despised big block Corvettes); I can well remember what life was like back then. “Comfortable” was an operative word, as least in the circles I ran in.
Unfortunately, that world is a long, long time ago. And shows no signs of ever returning.
Thank you for posting this- old C&D is always a great read, and the Corvette itself is… special. How else do we describe a model that’s survived 65 years (yep- that long). Heck, I think it’s a miracle the car survived the malaise era at all. I’ve never had an image issue with the car. Back in ’67, my neighbor up the street pulled up in a new Marina Blue Roadster. I was smitten… and never got over it. Nothing the Europeans have brought out since has had that kind of effect on me. And nothing GM has produced over that lengthy timeframe has maintained the enthusiasm of a large owner group like the Corvette has.
One interesting little bit of trivia. The average age of a C6 buyer (last bodystyle) was 61 yrs old. The C7’s average age has dropped to 52, so I guess I need to get over those square taillights. In Oregon, we see relatively few Corvettes on the road. Here’s a graphic, put together by GM parts, that shows where the most Corvettes live.
0-60 in 5.3 is still fast, not supercar fast. But still frickin fast. But look at the speed in gears. 3000 RPM at 63 MPH. That close ratio is nice for acceleration, but wow that screaming. My 84 Crown vic (with transplanted mustang GT 5.0) did 80 at 2000 RPM.
The Vette also lacks overdrive, which the 84 Crown Vic most certainly has (AOD). Overdrive alone made a huge impact on highway mileage figures when it became common.
I agree, still fast. V6 Camrys are the GTO of Camrys. A 2018 XLE, the one most people buy, run 7.6 0-60s and 15.9 @90.2 in the quarter mile. Still about as fast as some of the more mild muscle cars, but this 50 year old Vette will clean their clock.
It’s really good to know that this 427 tri-carb solid lifter 4-speed 3.70 rear axle Corvette can still (barely) outrun a four cylinder automatic Camry. Thank you; now I know the world hasn’t turned totally upside down.
Uhh, 13.8 @ 106 isn’t “barely” outrunning 15.9 @ 90.2. The four cylinder is two full seconds slower.
I guess I should apologize for shattering the notion that bread and butter Camrys aren’t ‘fast by association’ to their flagship XSE package.
Ok. Thanks for the heads up. Next time I’m driving a four cylinder Camry and a solid-lifter 427 Corvette pulls up next to me at a light, I will try hard to remember this and not challenge it.
Heh, you’re welcome. The good news is with the C3’s 47.8″ height, it’ll still be easy to look down your nose at it from the taller Camry 🙂
Or you could just keep your foot in the race past 60, Paul. I mean sure, the Camry is governor-limited to 133mph versus this 3.90-geared beast’s estimated 138, but that seems like equal odds on a good day. And run long enough, and the ‘Vette’s gonna run out of gas at half the Camry’s range 😉
5.3 seconds on the crappy tires that were available at that time, too. Just putting some decent modern tires on this is sure to get more of that power to the ground and widen the gap even further.
2 ses faster than a Camry 0-60 mph still.. Most Ferraris were 5 sec cars in the day . I get tired of ” Yesterdays super cars are slower than todays sedans”.
I love reading these old road tests here on CC. Please keep ’em coming!
That ‘Vette wasn’t that fast. Here’s a test of a street 64 427 Galaxie 500. Same quarter, slower to 60. I’d still rather have the Galaxie.
Having had a C&D subscription in that day, I remember this review – and headline.
I also remember either Hot Rod or Motor Trend – I also subscribed to both – running a poll of how the next Corvette should be. Front engine? Mid-engine? I can still kinda picture an artist’s rendering of what a mid-engine ‘Vette might look like – muscular, more businesslike. My 13-yo self was juiced.
And I always liked the C3, although as noted, the styling was controversial.
The accusation that GM lied about a mid-engined ‘Vette is respectfully, flat-out wrong.
No, lemme restate it. WRONG.
I thought I was pretty astute on current events as a child, and if my recollections are accurate, the first Earth Day – 1970 – concurrent with our national awakening to the fact that we just couldn’t keep pumping filth into the air, water and soil with no repercussions – was a blow to our national solar plexus.
The 1968 emissions standards, while admirable, were just the beginning. And by 1970, the question of leaded gasoline was going to require an answer. One that was eventually UNleaded after a transition period of low-lead fuels. High-compression engines were the first thing to go, replaced by lower-compression versions making far less power.
Plus insurance companies began to make muscle car ownership increasingly onerous; owning a GTO instead of a LeMans just might getcha cancelled. Even with a spotless driving record.
In Pop Culture, the Altamont concert disaster brought the curtain crashing down on the ’60s and most everything associated with it.
A more environmentally conscious younger generation – associating many of the 60’s status symbols with greed and excess – demanded cars suited to their tastes, or at least the perception thereof.
So you’re the General. Whaddya do?
And for those who weren’t there, it changed THAT fast. The seeds had been germinating for years, but when everything came together, it was a giant blow to the previous period of optimism that had characterized white-bread, middle class America.
Economic policy had changed as well, but my intent is to paint a picture, not politicize.
And I haven’t even addressed the Ralph Nader effect, which again, HAD to happen. Pretty easy to see that from the rearview mirror.
Did it take Detroit by surprise? It really shouldn’t have; those seeds were growing in a very public discussion about automotive safety.
But look at the front bumper of a 1973 Chevelle in contrast to what came before. Tell me it doesn’t have a “HOLY (bleep) THEY CHANGED THE LAW NOW WHAT DO WE DO???!!” look to it.
By the Bicentennial, muscle cars were cherished relics of a bygone era. They were only cool to a few, and it would be sometime before the public would warm up to them again. In 1976, a “hot car” had a good stereo. Even if it was a Pinto.
And for a few years, GM would ask itself if the market still existed for any Corvette – only to find that by repositioning it as a Gymkhana boulevard cruiser, they’d found the sweet spot. 150-175 HP was fine. Anyway, the General was busy with all-new B and C bodies, to be closely followed by new A body midsize cars, and then a clean-sheet FWD X series, which debuted just as the nation was reeling from its second gas crisis in five years.
In summary, the mid-engine 1970’s Corvette never materialized because the times and market had changed THAT much. The fact that the C3 lasted FIFTEEN model years, understood properly, is, to me, a statement about the times from which it came.
And Bowtie fanbois like me just figured a mid-engine Vette had fallen victim to the times…or as we’d say today, a big notgonnahappen dot com.
The C4 came from a very different GM. A mid-engine ‘Vette then not only would have been out of character (yes, I know, Fiero! But I think it’s apples and oranges)…but the execution would most likely have been excruciating.
Today is the time and place to do it. 30 years of Deadly Sins have been giving way to Greatest Hits for years now, and I think chances are the best yet that they’ll get the C8 mid-engine ‘Vette right. Hopefully it’ll be right, right from the gate.
Yep, I remember very well all that hype about that generation Corvette being the last front mount engine models. I’m still waiting for the mid-engine model to appear for going on 50 years now!
The whole mid-engined Corvette to this date has seemed like an unnecessary inevitability no one has been asking for, I had no idea it persisted as early as 1968, although I have seen some of the mid-engined wankel powered prototypes, but I thought they were mid-70s in origin. I had magazines rumoring about a mid engined corvette during the C5 generation too. There has been so much boy crying wolf with it I have no idea what to believe for 2020, or whenever. Was the mid-engined Ford they referred to (regarding the potential fate of the Vette) what became the Pantera?
The C3 is my favorite Corvette generation, and I think the 66 Riviera is prettier than the 63 for basically the same reasons I like the C3 just a little more than the C2. C&D rightfully points out its indisputable flaws, point by point, but by the end with “goodbye to the jet-plane gimmickry. And for that, we’d all be thankful”, it and the preceding just come off as snobbish to me. The C3 was a wild sketch without real world accomidations for mass consumption, but that’s the point, that’s what makes them so fun to look at over a C4/5/6, and ultimately represent the American spirit of the time more than it would if it were a tidy Pininfarina knock-off (which Pininfarina make enough of). The early C3 also was fast and capable, if not more so than many European “rivals”, showing up the naysayers and doing it in the boastful American style, and that spirit largely ended after that generation.
Having said that, I’ve never been much of a Corvette guy. Like Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston Martin et al, this catagory of car just kind of left my dream car list by the time I hit puberty. They still grab my attention, but with the visual aspect being far more interesting to me than their statistical and technical aspects(to some extent), they all kind of group together as attention grabbing status symbols, and with that measure the early C3 aquits itself well for the late 60s climate. I feel like when the soft bumpers and bubbleback window appeared, that’s when the body looked contrived and overwrought.
Road & Track predicted a mid-engined Corvette way back in January 1971.
“Those are only just slightly faster than a Camry V6, and about comparable to a Subaru Forester XT I tested some years back”
*Yawn*
That poor Horse. People just can’t stop beating it. If you’re going to compare Apples to River Rocks at least make it interesting. Like the Yukon Denali 6.2 (2017) 5.8 seconds to 60 and 14.3 seconds in the 1/4 mile.
Why would that make it more interesting? Sure, a two-plus-ton, body-on-frame beast with a 6-plus-liter V8 and mileage in the teens can meet or beat this ‘Vette’s 0-60 time. But that was already the case in the ’60s, and they weren’t helped immensely at a dig by 4WD or priced twice as high in ’60s dollars. Isn’t it more interesting that the most relatively benign family car, with none of those compromises, can now do the same for much less (equivalent) money and with greater economy?
I think I just missed the Corvette and 440 6 Pack moonshine articles by a few months, back in the day. I discovered C/D in 1970, the first articles were the GTO Judge and upcoming new Vega and Pinto tests. These old reviews are great, haven’t subscribed to C/D for many years, junk now but great back in the day.
11:1 compression would be pretty rough on today’s cat pee gas. They estimated top speed? Must’ve been pretty squirrelly cause you know most car guys would’ve gave it all she got in a test. These did have attention getting looks if that was desired…
Today’s Fuel is laughable when speaking of the 60’s, early 70’s Motors. Not to mention the 70’ L-88’/ZL1 Hybrid Iron Block Motors, they ran 12.5:1, the 69’ ZL-1 All Aluminum Block ran 12:1, and BOTH VASTLY underrated at 430 HP. More like 500-550HP with Torque in the high 480+ range.’The Cams run were with such Duration, lift, lobe separation- they did not like Stoplights. Turning on the heat full blast while in 90” outside Temp’s will slow the rising Temp gauge, and a great weight loss program simultaneously. They really needed 103-110 Octane fuel, or retarded timing and driving like- well- ‘Legally’. Hate that word when referencing Cars and Driving.
Another underrated was the 70’ LS-6. 450HP?, More like 550HP, becoming a 454/365HP Motor due to those like Ralph Nader, who was screwing with the Emission Standards coming to crush ‘Muscle’ then, and MFg’s soon adopted ‘Net’ spec’s versus ‘Gross’ spec’s to do what they could, throwing off many consumers- Net and Gross was like learning Decimals and many just avoided it. Putting a 500 hp motor at the Crank (Gross Hp) in a Vehicle yields about 430-445 Hp (Net).
Then- it has to plant that Hp. Burnouts are cool, and fun- but when launching, it becomes a serious issue- and gets old.
The power of then and now is most easily explained as (Past Power) riding a 2 Stroke 500cc Dirtbike, versus a 4 Stroker (Today’s HP).. Power comes on fast and hard. in a 2 Stroke- hard pull comes fast. A 4 Stroke Motorcycle is very flat-predictable.
You won’t likely intimidate nor impress many running 0-60 in a Camry, if you don’t ‘Scare’, you will produce a Hell of a great lasting euphoria doing the same in a 427 or with other excellent motor choices available in an old School Corvette.
Why couldn’t the 86-87’ 231cid (3.8l) Turbo Buick GN be used in the Camry’s place- (?) that would have been a nice comparison.
Great info, Thanks Guys!!
My 200HP 78’ Anniversary edition Corvette, 60k Original everything, except Tires. I also have a 68’’Astra X300GT Im nearing completion on, ways to go. Anyone have one up here- or interested in pic’s- pls. just ask.:)
Excellent and fun read. The coolest kid in my high school had a Chevelle with an L88, what a rocket.
The C3 was the first Corvette I knew of. I like the style of reviews these magazines did many years ago; you don’t get that kind of writing these days, it’s all style and no substance. But if GM does introduce a mid-engine sports car, would it be justifiable to still call it a Corvette given that the Corvette has existed in a particular format for 65 years now?
I just hope the Mid Engine Corvette turns out better than the Pontiac Fiero.
Fiero (yeeesh) was certainly not followed through with. I’ve seen a few with many mod’s and Twin Turbo v-6’s. I do agree- they dropped the ball on that one.
Yes, a Mid engined Corvette seems like an unusual thing to do as they’ve really nailed everything over the years in terms of performance. I imagine they want to get into the mainstream ‘Supercar’ classification. I’d guess they are going to end up (only in design) like the Ford GT. The Car sails, and screams ‘Yes’ in both acceleration and hard twisties.
I also have (2) 2008 Ford Mustangs, (1) a GT, the other a Shelby GT500. They used many pieces from the Ford GT in the 5.4l GT500 build. Built well, predictable- and it’s now in the 700 HP (NET) range.
I’d read that many years ago, Ford sent their Competitors unusual “Gifts”. When Crysler, Dodge, GM, etc opened their ‘Gifts’, some were clueless- others understood. They were all sent vials and Syringes for delivering Cobra Antivenin. Yup. The Shelby AC Cobra and Mustang Shelby Cobra’s were the impending threat- when finally unveiled. Fun job, lol!
07’-09’ Mustangs Look the most like a 68-69 Mustang, I believe the 2010-up moved further and further away from that platform, now really not so intriguing to me. Camaro’s too. Not a big fan of either style(s), but they all do have an allure, just the same.
I’m a believer that every US manufacturer of Musclecars has made at least (1) Car that has beaten the odds, deserves recognition. It took me years to come to terms with that, I was a fierce supporter of Pontiac GTO’s, T-37’s, etc.. Even ‘American’ came out with the ‘Scrambler’, a performance Rambler. Light Car, big motor. id not seen the insanity with prices spike in the mid to late 90’s. In the late 80’s, you could get any musclecar you wanted on a Shoestring budget, now-impossible for many..
These cannot be rushed. This is a 67’ Kellison Astra X300GT. I’d picked ut up off my Uncle’s yard when he ran out of time- started working 7-12’s. Was started in 1970, he’d found all the parts of the era needed when available, Glass, Motor, Trans, various NOS Corvette/Chevy Parts. Has a Kellison Frame w/X member, I’m rebuilding the L-79 (1968) 327- sat too long, M-22 I’d gone through- great shape, rear is 4.11 Posi out of a 55’ Belair. Body is now Cut, Doors cut out and finished, very modified and finished as I want it- yet didn’t interrupt the Original concept. The Hood is last, Corvette style scoop is going to give me the upper Clearance, Mocking the 327 with the new Top end was hitting the hood- I’d already made a Hood riser for a big Radiator support and Twin fans up front- but just continuing that upwards.
I’d Flattened the roofline and radiused Doors to sweep outward further into wider Quarters, cut the Car in half Front to Rear- increasing width by 2”, Roll Cage room, and wider quarters for help keeping 15” 305’s Rear, 17” 225’s up Front. Oxide for blocking, Pearl/Candy Apple Red w/Flake multiStage topcoat i’m Spraying once completed Mechanically. Electrical’s and Electronics are completed. Interior is functionally finished, aesthetics include a TIG welded Aluminum Floors, door panels. Interior parts machined will be Anodized/Bolted in as I’m done with them. Body style is (to me) one of the best in a Classic kit style, (yet unknown to many), but a good example of the Retro Classic Musclecar look.
67’ Kellison Astra X300GT, Pic #2 of 4.
67’ Kellison Astra X300GT, Pic#3/4 Drivers side.
1967 Kellison Astra X300GT Pic 4/4 ; Passenger Side.
Yeah I remember a mid-engined Corvette being teased for seemingly my whole life before it finally happened (I don’t ever recall rumors of a rear-engined ‘Vette though).
The latest Corvette has changed its image for me, into something that might appeal to import-centric buyers. It has near-supercar performance (and looks) at a bargain price.
It’s like there’s two GMs, the one that makes impassioned, great-at-what-they-do cars like the Corvette or CT4/CT5 Blackwing, and the one that makes phoned-in sedans and crossovers for the mass market.
C3 Corvettes? Brings up images of Tom Selleck look alikes, shirt unbuttioned and 19lbs of gold chains around their neck, while trolling for teenage girls circa 1977 to share their coke with.
That’s my image of mid- to late C3’s only.
First Vette I had a ride in was a 427 tri-power. Wow! It was wicked fast.
50 plus years later a Camry is almost as fast? Who cares! 50 plus years of progress and the Camry is still slower then a ’69 Vette. Total apples to turnips comparison.
When comparing acceleration times for old cars the lack of grip tires of the times is often forgotten. Getting off the line was hit and miss, affecting times greatly. With decent modern tires a big block Corvette is still quick – I had a ’66 427/425 (3.08 rear end/4spd) at the same time my daily drivers were new 997 gen. 911Ss and a C5 Z06 and the old ‘Vette still felt brutally fast in comparison, although the newer cars would exceed its top speed.
“When comparing acceleration times for old cars the lack of grip tires of the times is often forgotten. Getting off the line was hit and miss, affecting times greatly”
“Total apples to turnips comparison.”
Absolutely. Look at the HUGE disparity of the trap speeds; an excellent metric to tell how good a car “pulls”.
Absolutely…gearing also plays a huge role – our family SUV has a ZF 8 speed auto that changes really quickly and has a much greater spread of ratios than the old 4 speed manuals or 2 or 3 speed automatics in those old cars. The net result being that you don’t have to choose between a 4:11 rear end for acceleration or a 3:08 for high speed cruising.
Funnily enough, I replaced the 3:70 with 3:08 in my ‘Vette, as I was using it in Germany and across Europe. I used to successfully street race it and was always questioned as to why it “had a powerglide” as, with the close ratio M22 it would pull over 60mph before changing into second. I think the long first actually helped me not blow the tires off and get traction. I could then get into second and start using full throttle. My car also had a monoleaf rear spring and Bilstein dampers to aid traction.
That raises another point – modern cars have traction control – you can basically mat it with no throttle modulation required. Lots also have launch control to make it even easier to get consistent acceleration times.
Engine management is also key – go to altitude and carbs will start to run rich (we also did hillclimbs and rallies in the mountains) although a modern electronic ignition will help this.
Thus the vaunted Camry can accelerate to the maximum of its capabilities consistently, whereas the old warriors are dependent on many variables.